IPCC and Policy Options: To Open Up or Close Down?

With the release of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis report last week, the IPCC made a dramatic statement that has thus far escaped notice. The IPCC has endorsed the Kyoto Protocol process, at once discarding its fig leaf of being “policy neutral” and putting its scientific authority on the line by supporting a policy approach that many people think simply cannot work.

The IPCC Synthesis Report states:

There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to climate change, stimulation of an array of national policies, and the creation of an international carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress has also been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCC and additional international initiatives have been suggested.

The IPCC has never really been “policy neutral” despite its claims, so such openness in its political advocacy is a welcome change (an “emboldened” stance is also noted by the NYT’s Elisabeth Rosenthal).

However, its claims that there is “high agreement” and “much evidence” of the success of the Kyoto Protocol approach are simply wrong, unless one restricts those claims to a fairly narrow group of experts. The ability of the Kyoto Protocol approach to effectively deal with the challenge of climate change is hotly debated (for instance, PDF). And there is considerable evidence that it has done little (or less) in practice. The claim by the IPCC that the UNFCCC has contributed to progress on adaptation is laughable (PDF).

In short, the IPCC appears to be using the language and concepts of a scientific consensus to suggest that there is also a consensus on the policy effectiveness and political worth of the Kyoto approach. This is a perfect example of how science becomes pathologically politicized. There are a wide range of approaches to climate change policy that are consistent with the work of the IPCC working groups. For an example of such an approach, see my congressional testimony from last May which synthesizes the 3 IPCC reports (here in PDF) in a way that suggests that it is future development paths that matter much more than Kyoto-like attempts to limit emissions.

Ultimately, it is fair to ask of the IPCC what its role in climate policy actually is — is it to provide an assessment of the views of a wide range of experts on questions of relevance to decision makers? Or perhaps it is to survey a wide range of policy options to facilitate decision making by governments? Or is it to pick a “winner” in climate politics and advocate for its agenda above all others?

Is it to open up debate on climate policy or close it down? Judging by the AR4 Synthesis Report the IPCC has chosen the latter path.

The risk is that the IPCC has chosen a losing policy option to advocate for — “the wrong trousers” to borrow a metaphor — and thus is more likely to work against the adoption of effective climate policies than it would by presenting policy makers with a wide range of options to chose from, including but not limited to Kyoto. Climate policy debates will be ongoing for years and probably decades. We will need honest brokers if we are to made good decisions about climate policy.

The more that the IPCC resembles an advocacy group with a narrow political agenda tied to the Kyoto Protocol, the more it risks its credibility, legitimacy, and ultimately, its sustainability.

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being
affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2}

Below this point, beginning at the top of page 3, the report makes the following statement:

Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical
and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to
warming (Figure SPM.2). However, there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed
changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries. {1.3}

Figure SPM.2 is then introduced.

In reading the caption for Figure SPM.2, I found that the 29,000 data series referenced in the above statement are a subset of a total of 80,000 data series which have met 3 criteria. I can understand the reasoning for the first two criteria but the third criteria escapes me. It states that data series which did not display a significant change in either direction were excluded from the analysis. My question is why were they excluded?

It seems as though the figure and the attendent statement are meant to establish the high correlation between the expected change in the variable measured and global surface warming. If this is the case, why were data series with no significant trend excluded since that would have a direct bearing on whether such a correlation exists?

I went back to the WG1 Technical Report and the WG1 Summary for Policymakers to see if there was any explanation on this, but I couldn’t find this figure or its corresponding statement in those reports.

Does anyone know why this figure was included in the Synthesis Report when it wasn’t displayed before?

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being
affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2}

Below this point, beginning at the top of page 3, the report makes the following statement:

Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical
and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to
warming (Figure SPM.2). However, there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed
changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries. {1.3}

Figure SPM.2 is then introduced.

In reading the caption for Figure SPM.2, I found that the 29,000 data series referenced in the above statement are a subset of a total of 80,000 data series which have met 3 criteria. I can understand the reasoning for the first two criteria but the third criteria escapes me. It states that data series which did not display a significant change in either direction were excluded from the analysis. My question is why were they excluded?

It seems as though the figure and the attendent statement are meant to establish the high correlation between the expected change in the variable measured and global surface warming. If this is the case, why were data series with no significant trend excluded since that would have a direct bearing on whether such a correlation exists?

I went back to the WG1 Technical Report and the WG1 Summary for Policymakers to see if there was any explanation on this, but I couldn’t find this figure or its corresponding statement in those reports.

Does anyone know why this figure was included in the Synthesis Report when it wasn’t displayed before?